1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to a tool holder. More particularly this invention consists of apparatus for suspending a hammer or other T-shaped tool from a user's belt or from a stationary mount such as a tool box or wall.
2. Description of Prior Art
Carpenters and other craftspeople have continually sought ways in which their small tools could be comfortably carried and easily accessed on the job. For at least 100 years tool holders have been marketed which have--to varying degrees of success--met the goal of allowing workers to suspend such tools from their belts in such a way that the tools could be comfortably retrieved. Traditionally, these tool holders used as their key element a beltclip-supported wire loop shaped so as to form a cradle into which a hammer or other T-shaped tool could be placed. See, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 1,326,887 issued to Wood (1919) and, more recently, U.S. Pat. No. 4,638,530 issued to Perry (1987), both of which disclose a traditional belt-mounted loop-type cradle into which a tool can be placed.
As will be discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs, there are three primary drawbacks associated with the traditional loop-type cradles: 1) they leave the tool free to rotate and hence to snag clothing and other nearby objects, which snagging may in turn cause the tool to slip from the holder; 2) they do not prevent the tool from slipping out when the user is leaning over or for any other reason is in a non-upright orientation; 3) they require an awkward motion on the part of the user when the tool is to be inserted or withdrawn--that is, for both actions the tool must be held in a vertical orientation and positioned above the cradle.
It is because the traditional holders support the tool at a level which is below the tool's center of gravity that the tool is particularly prone to rotate and then to catch on clothing and other objects and occasionally fall out. An example of such a device is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,106,679 issued to Hillinger (1978). Furthermore, these traditional designs provide no affirmative way to forestall the tool's slipping out and falling when the user leans over or for any other reason changes the orientation of the belt on which the holder is mounted. In addition to the potential for marring clothing and other property, the unrestricted tool swing and lack of a tool-securing device render the traditional tool holder somewhat hazardous to workers and other present on a construction site, especially one involving multi-level projects.
The final problem alluded to is inherent in the simple traditional loop-type holders and relates to the relatively awkward motions required to insert the tool into the holder and to withdraw it from the holder. Specifically, the insertion of the tool requires that is first be positioned above the holder in an essentially vertical orientation with its handle directed downward. The handle is then slid down through the loop, which then catches and supports the body of the tool, which is too large to pass through. Withdrawal requires essentially the same motion in reverse, with the entire tool being raised above the holder in a more or less vertical orientation during retrieval. This lifting motion is awkward and inefficient for the user, who must subsequently re-position his grip in order to use the tool.
Several attempts have been made in the prior art to address the need for securing the tool. See, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 2,956,715 issued to Henderson (1960) and U.S. Pat. No. 3,100,590 issued to Bohlsen (1963), both disclosing holders which fully support and clasp the inverted tool by its body while making the tool handle readily available by storing the tool with the handle upwards. Unfortunately, because the center of gravity of the tool is now significantly below the point of attachment to the user's garment, the tool and holder tend to swing outward, and hence are uncomfortable to wear as well as being destructive to the clothing of the user.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,156,388 issued to Simmons (1964) addresses the ease-of-insertion/withdrawal problem mentioned above. It teaches a tool holder in which the tool is inserted by grasping the body of the tool and pushing it against two spring-loaded retaining jaws. The problem with this system is that in order to remove the tool the holder must be manipulated so that the retaining jaws are pushed back into their recessed position. The need to perform this additional manipulation constitutes a clear impediment and annoyance to the worker needing to retrieve and then stow the tool frequently. Likewise, U.S. Pat. No. 4,645,104 issued to Vokaty (1987) discloses a hammer holder having a cylindrical barrel into which the body of the tool can be placed. While solving the problem of the excessive swing and to a certain extent providing for a secure gripping of the tool by the holder, this design actually worsens the retrieval problem; it requires that--when stowing or retrieving the tool--the user hold the tool handle outward from his or her body at approximately a 90-degree angle. The motion required to orient the handle perpendicularly to one's body is unnatural and inefficient for the user, especially for one working in tight quarters. In a similar vein, U.S. Pat. No. 3,104,434 issued to Noordhoek (1962) also discloses a hammer hanger that secures the hammer by retaining it at its center of mass. However, the Noordhoek device fails to overcome the problem associated with providing a convenient means of stowing and retrieving the tool when the user is in an awkward position. In particular, the tool must be inserted into the holder in a specific way, and it must be withdrawn in the same manner.
Continuing attempts have been made to address the convenience-of-access question, with the goal of requiring only minimal storage/retrieval motion on the part of the user. U.S. Pat. No. 4,790,461 issued to Stover (1988) discloses a tool holder with a hinged gate. The tool is inserted by grasping the handle and swinging downwards; the tool is removed by grasping the handle and swinging upwards. However, no provision is made for securing the tool.
In summary, although attempts have been made through the years to address the problems of excess swing, grip security, and ease of storage and retrieval nothing in the prior art appears to deal adequately with all of these problems. What is needed is a tool holder that (1) grasps the mounted tool so as to prevent it from swinging excessively or from slipping free inadvertently and which (2) allows the user an easy and comfortable method by which to stow and retrieve the tool.